Would George Foreman taken out Tyson the same way he did Joe Frazier and Kenny Norton

Tyson was a great inside fighter much better than Frazier with his wide telegraphed hooks, his defence was his offence that head movement and footwork to get inside. Tyson wasn't a mid-range fighter. :lol1: Nobody obliterated fighters like Tyson did. Log the f*ck off, son.

Not even Cus D'Amato would back Mike for this one.

I cant see Tyson winning this fight to be honest. Foreman is probably the strongest elite fighter ever, Tyson would be shoved off if he tried to get close, once hes on the back foot Foreman beats him up. Tyson has a punchers chance against anybody, but this is a bad style match up for him, same as it was for Frazier.

I don't think so. Foreman threw round house punches from the outside Tyson threw short compact power punches thus making Tyson able to connect first. Plus, Tyson was a master of closing the gap against taller fighter's taking their range of punching distance /power away from them thus making their power shots useless an ineffective. Foreman almost throw all of his punches exclusively from the outside needing range and distance therefore you can do the math here. Let's not forget Tyson's hand speed, nor forget Tyson's inside fighting ability BOTH things of which Foreman lacked compared to Tyson. Styles make fights and this is exactly how I think Foreman and Tyson's styles would mesh. Frazier and Norton worked their way inside. Frazier was short and he shuffled in underneath his opponents punches. Foreman's style negated that because he threw huge punches that started low and arced their way up. Frazier couldn't get in under them and they were too hard to walk through. Tyson was short too but he didn't work his way in close. He used feints and movement to create openings then jumped in fast behind his punches. He was more mobile than Frazier and could wrong foot opponents and attack from either side, rather than just coming straight at them. Tyson could also equal Foreman's one punch power, Frazier and Norton couldn't.

I think he grinds Mike down late after weathering the inevitable early storm.

Tyson was essentially very similar to Joe Frazier just much faster and more double handed, would Foreman have just walked him down and taken him out in the same fashion?? Which Tyson 1990 and under version or the 1991 and after ?The 1991 and after gets lifted off the floor like Fraizer the 1990 Tyson stops big George

Tyson would have punched the living **** out of Foreman. Tyson would have knocked the **** out of 70's Foreman in short order. Beyond any doubt. Anything to the contrary is of the EXTREME nut bag persuasion. Case closed

No. Tyson is better than Frazier and Norton.

Big part of "obliteration" was mental. Tyson's opponents were intimidated. I can hardly imagine Foreman being a victim of that. More likely it will be the other way around. When Tyson will close the distance, Foreman will just push him away the same way as he did to Frazier, thus creating necessary distance.

Tyson was a great inside fighter much better than Frazier with his wide telegraphed hooks, his defence was his offence that head movement and footwork to get inside. Tyson wasn't a mid-range fighter. :lol1: Nobody obliterated fighters like Tyson did. Yeah, wide telegraphed hooks that made him the undisputed champion during the best era in heavyweight history. They must have been really wide and telegraphed. He lost to 2 of arguably the 5 best heavyweights ever and beat the crap out of everyone else. Tyson mostly obliterated mediocrity. That people actually think he's a "Super Frazier" is proof of how badly the hype machine around him affected people.

No he wasn't. And yes, Foreman would destroy Tyson. I don't think so. Foreman threw round house punches from the outside Tyson threw short compact power punches thus making Tyson able to connect first. Plus, Tyson was a master of closing the gap against taller fighter's taking their range of punching distance /power away from them thus making their power shots useless an ineffective. Foreman almost throw all of his punches exclusively from the outside needing range and distance therefore you can do the math here. Let's not forget Tyson's hand speed, nor forget Tyson's inside fighting ability BOTH things of which Foreman lacked compared to Tyson.

Yes he was. Better speed/power/strength/head movement/footwork i can't think of a single thing Frazier was better at apart from stamina. He was better inside, he was tougher, he had better defense proven against much better offense, he was a better body puncher, he was more consistent throughout a fight, and he beat a hell of a lot better fighters. He obliterated better fighters than Tyson did in the same fashion. Plus, they were not nearly as similar as people think. Tyson was a mid-range fighter who wanted to explode with punches. Frazier slipped past your offense, got inside, and beat you down.

NO. Tyson was a super Frazier, better in everyway as a fighter. No he wasn't. And yes, Foreman would destroy Tyson.